In project management, success does not merely depend on completing tasks — it depends on doing them in the right order. Without clarity on how tasks relate to one another, teams risk misalignment, unnecessary delays, or chaotic work flows. That’s where the concept of predecessors becomes indispensable: by formally defining which tasks must come before others, project managers can build a roadmap that flows logically, adapts to change, and keeps everyone on the same page.
In this article, we will explore what predecessors are, the different types of dependencies, how to use them effectively, common mistakes to avoid, best practices — and how to implement them using a modern project management tool called Corexta.
What Are Predecessors in Project Management?
In the context of project scheduling, a predecessor is a task whose start or finish — or both — determines when another task (the successor) can start or finish. In other words, the predecessor is a task that must occur (or at least partially occur) before another task can proceed.
By establishing predecessor relationships between tasks, project managers and teams create a logical and enforceable sequence of work. This sequencing ensures that work flows smoothly, resources are used efficiently, and dependencies are clear — which is especially crucial in complex projects with many interdependent tasks.
Predecessors, along with their counterpart concept of successors, form the backbone of project schedules and are critical in determining a project’s timeline, identifying critical paths, and managing risk.
Types of Task Dependencies (Predecessors)
There are four standard types of dependencies — i.e., ways in which a predecessor task can be linked to a successor task. These represent different logical relationships between tasks.
Finish-to-Start dependency (FS)
Definition: The most common type of dependency. In an FS relationship, the predecessor task must finish before the successor task can start.
Example: Imagine you’re building a house. Task A is “lay foundation,” and Task B is “pour concrete slab.” You can’t begin pouring the slab (Task B) until the foundation is laid (Task A). That’s a clear Finish-to-Start dependency.
Because FS is intuitive — “one task ends, then the next begins” — it’s typically the default dependency choice in many project-scheduling tools.
Start-to-Start dependency (SS)
Definition: In an SS relationship, the successor task cannot start until the predecessor task has started. In other words, both tasks begin at roughly the same time (though the successor might start somewhat later).
Example: Suppose in a software development project, Task A is “start backend development,” and Task B is “start frontend development.” If the frontend team can begin as soon as backend work starts (for example, because backend will deliver API stubs incrementally), you might use an SS dependency.
SS dependencies are useful when tasks can overlap and do not have to wait for full completion of a predecessor — but still have to wait for at least the start of that predecessor.
Finish-to-Finish dependency (FF)
Definition: In an FF relationship, the successor task cannot finish until the predecessor task has finished. The two tasks might start independently or at different times, but their completion times are linked.
Example: Imagine writing and editing a report. Task A is “write draft,” and Task B is “edit draft.” While editing can begin before writing is fully finished (perhaps for earlier sections), the final editing (completion) cannot finish until the draft is completely written. In that scenario, FF ensures the edit is only considered complete when writing is also complete.
This type of dependency helps synchronize the ending of related activities — useful in workflows where multiple streams must conclude together or where one activity’s finish triggers another’s finish condition.
Start-to-Finish dependency (SF)
Definition: The least common dependency type. In SF, the successor task cannot finish until the predecessor task has started. This means that finishing one task is contingent upon the start of another.
Example: SF dependencies are fairly rare in everyday workflows, but consider a situation where Task A is “start shift of new team,” and Task B is “finish shift of old team.” You might insist that the old team cannot complete their shift until the new team has started.
Because SF relationships are often counterintuitive — “one task can’t end until another begins” — they’re seldom used in typical project plans.
How to Use Predecessors in Project Management
Understanding what predecessors are and learning the dependency types is just the beginning. The real value emerges when you systematically use predecessors to plan, manage, and adapt your projects. Here’s a recommended step-by-step process to do that well. This approach is beneficial whether you use paper-based planning, spreadsheets, or a digital project-management tool like Corexta.
Step #1: Break work into sharp, actionable tasks
Before you define dependencies, you need clarity on what your tasks actually are. Break down your project into granular, actionable tasks — not vague goals — so each task represents a discrete, manageable unit of work. This ensures dependencies make sense and are enforceable.
Step #2: Trace how the work naturally connects
Once you have individual tasks, examine how they logically fit together. Which tasks must precede others? Which can run in parallel? Which ones only need to begin, or only need to finish, before another task proceeds? This mapping of relationships helps you decide which dependency type to use (FS, SS, FF, SF). This phase becomes the foundation of your project logic.
Step #3: Establish predecessors in your tool
If you’re using a project management tool (or spreadsheet), assign each task a predecessor field and set the appropriate dependency type. Many tools default to Finish-to-Start (FS) if no type is specified.
Additionally, if your tool supports it, add lag or lead times — small delays or overlaps — to fine-tune your schedule. Lag time delays the successor; lead time allows overlap.
Step #4: Revisit when things shift
Projects are dynamic — delays, scope changes, resource issues, or new tasks can emerge. As things shift, it’s important to revisit dependencies and adjust them. Updating predecessors ensures the project timeline remains realistic and reflects the new reality.
Step #5: Share the view so the whole team stays aligned
Dependencies are only useful if the whole team understands them. Share the project plan — ideally in a tool that visualizes dependencies (like a Gantt chart or task-dependency diagram) — so everyone sees the order of tasks, dependencies, and how their work is connected to others’. Transparency reduces confusion and improves coordination.
Common Mistakes Made With Predecessors
Even experienced teams can slip up when using predecessors. Here are some of the most frequent mistakes:
Breaking tasks too coarsely — If tasks are too large or vague, dependencies become unclear or illogical, leading to poor schedule control.
Overlooking dependencies — Forgetting to set predecessors can make tasks independent when they shouldn’t be, causing schedule conflicts or resource bottlenecks.
Using incorrect dependency types — For example, using FS when SS or FF would better reflect actual workflow, leading to inefficiencies or forced delays.
Ignoring lag/lead time — Not accounting for necessary buffer times (e.g., for approvals, dependencies, waiting periods) can result in unrealistic timelines.
Not updating dependencies when scope changes — If new tasks are added or priorities shift, failing to adjust the dependencies can invalidate the entire project schedule.
Best Practices for Managing Predecessors in Project Management
To get the most value from predecessors and dependencies:
Always begin with a clear work breakdown structure (WBS) — granular, actionable tasks make dependencies meaningful.
Use dependency types judiciously — default to FS when possible, but do not force a simple linear sequence if tasks can overlap (SS or FF may better fit).
Leverage lag and lead time thoughtfully — use buffers when necessary, but avoid unnecessary delays.
Visualize dependencies — use a Gantt chart, network diagram, or dependency map so the team can intuitively grasp the flow.
Communicate and share the plan — make sure every stakeholder understands the dependencies and their place in the sequence.
Review and adapt often — as the project evolves, revisit dependencies to reflect new realities and keep the schedule accurate.
How to Set Up Predecessors in Corexta
If you use Corexta, the process of managing dependencies aligns with the best practices above — and Corexta provides built-in support to make this easier. According to Corexta’s documentation and features:
Corexta supports task dependencies, allowing you to define the order in which tasks must be completed.
Once a predecessor task is marked complete, automation in Corexta can trigger the next task — ensuring continuity and reducing manual oversight.
Corexta’s visual task management features (e.g. project Gantt charts or Kanban board + timeline views) help you see dependencies and timelines at a glance, improving clarity and coordination.
For larger projects, you can create a “master task” (or parent task) and break the project into subtasks. Then, you can link those subtasks with predecessor relationships as needed.
In practice, setting up predecessors in Corexta might look like this:
Break your project into individual tasks and subtasks.
For each task, identify what other task(s) must precede it — that becomes its predecessor.
In Corexta, assign that predecessor relationship in the task settings/dependency field.
Optionally, set up automation so the successor task triggers once the predecessor completes.
Use a visual timeline or chart to view and communicate the full sequence with your team.
This approach helps you “keep work moving in the right order” and “cross-reference related tasks for clarity,” ensuring that every team member understands how their work connects with others’.
Sign up for Corexta today!
Conclusion
Predecessors — and the dependencies they represent — are more than just scheduling mechanics. They are the structure that ensures complex projects stay coherent, efficient, and adaptable. By explicitly defining which tasks come before others, project managers convert a chaotic collection of tasks into a strategic roadmap. With dependency types like Finish-to-Start (FS), Start-to-Start (SS), Finish-to-Finish (FF), and the less common Start-to-Finish (SF), teams can model almost any workflow — from strictly sequential to overlapping or intertwined.
The real value comes from using predecessors conscientiously: breaking tasks down properly, analyzing how work naturally flows, assigning dependencies thoughtfully, visualizing the plan, and continuously revisiting it as conditions change. Modern tools like Corexta make this process smoother by supporting dependencies, automating task progress, and offering visual views. When done right, dependency management not only clarifies “what comes next” — it becomes a foundation for predictable delivery, better teamwork, and efficient project execution.
